Back
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, VENKATESH NAIK T.
U. R. Kantharaju S/o Sri Ramanna – Appellant
Versus
State by Mandya Rural Police Station Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
These two appeals have arisen from judgments dated 22.11.2016 in two sessions cases, S.C.53/1999 and S.C.19/2014 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya. The appellants in Crl.A.2089/2016 faced trial in S.C. 53/1999 for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 IPC and have stood convicted and sentenced for those offences. The appellant in Crl.A.199/2017 has questioned the correctness of judgment in S.C.19/2014 acquitting accused no.2 of the offence under section 307 of IPC.
2. The case projected in S.C.53/1999 was, three brothers namely Kantharaju, Chandru and Siddaramu were transporting harvested sugarcane in a bullock cart. When the cart came near the land of Ganesh (DW3), Ramaiah, the deceased in this case stopped the cart, took objection for driving the bullock cart through his land and questioned Kantharaju, Chandru and Siddaramu about it. At that time the three brothers assaulted Ramaiah with weapons such as a pickaxe and a chopper. When Prakasha, the nephew of Ramaiah interfered for the rescue of his uncle i.e., Ramaiah, Kantharaju and Chandru assaulted him. Ramaiah was first taken to District Hospital, Mandya.
The right of private defense applies when there is a reasonable apprehension of danger to life, allowing for necessary force in self-defense, as established in the judgment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and limitation of the right of private defence, leading to the toning down of the charge and acquittal of the accused from certain ....
The need for consistency and credibility in evaluating evidence in criminal cases, and the requirement to prove common intention under S.149 IPC.
Minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony do not undermine the overall credibility of the case, particularly when witnesses have sustained injuries and evidence reflects a disproportionate respon....
Eyewitness accounts, particularly from injured witnesses, are pivotal in establishing guilt despite minor discrepancies; prior enmity reinforces motives for violent offenses.
(1) A case and counter case arising out of same incident should always be tried by same Court.(2) Right to private defence – Reasonable apprehension of death or genuine apprehension of grievous hurt ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
